hac_self_diagnose

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only audit through verbs like 'checks', 'counts', and 'reviews', and discloses the three audit areas. However, it doesn't state that it's non-destructive, whether it mutates any learning state, or whether it requires auth, leaving behavioral traits to inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its three components with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description adequately conveys scope for a no-arg self-diagnostic, with only the missing when-to-use routing against adjacent tools as a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this takes no arguments, which it effectively does by describing a self-contained audit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (runs a self-health audit) and resource (the SAP-Commerce-MCP server), and enumerates the three checks performed: regression suite, archived script count, and best-practice rules. This is clearer than most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with hac_status or hac_self_improve, which sound related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives like hac_status (also health/status-looking) or hac_self_improve. The purpose is implied by the name but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.